In this case, US government should support SMIC. There is little doubt that if SMIC had access to the latest equipment they would beat TSMC in no time. As an individual investor you can support whatever company you want. US government on the other hand was put in place with a goal of promoting US interests and businesses. Your idea clearly goes against this goal and thus is probably a non-starter.
Let’s rebuild the US microchip industry – not give it a $50bn-plus check
- Thread starter hist78
- Start date
I doubt you are in a position to assure any of it. My point was that fabless companies can't be very efficient without the foundries. Hopefully, with the help from the CHIPS act those fabulous American fabless companies will be able to manufacture their chips at the best in class American foundries. As a self proclaimed US patriot, I am sure you will appreciate it.
hist78
Well-known member
Are you suggesting that after taking US taxpayers' money, Intel can do whatever they want in China?
Let me repeat myself:
"Does Intel really think people are so naive to forget China and its aggression is one of the major reasons why we are having CHIPS Act and the serious discussion on domestic semiconductor manufacturing?
As a taxpayer, my exception is very simple: Intel can taken $10 ~ $30 billion taxpayers' money but must allow US to review its China investment. Otherwise Intel can do more in China as it wants, but don't take a penny from US taxpayers."
"In no time"? Unlikely.
Designing chips is far and away easier and cheaper than building fabs. The two activities are not comparable, and chip designers often have teams distributed throughout the world. I don't think we should confuse based in the US with designed in the US.
Last edited:
That's because the US government is trying to treat the symptoms, not cure the diseases. It almost certainly is true that it costs more to build and operate fabs in the US than in Asia. Can one of these clueless politicians state even one reason why? Certainly not Bernie Sanders. Congress has nearly unlimited resources at their disposal. Why not ask companies like Intel, TI, GF, Micron, and whoever else is in this game, exactly why it's cheaper to put fabs in Asia and then fix some of the most expensive problems with legislation. Other types of companies would probably benefit too. Giving money away or centralized R&D and planning will make things worse, not better. IMO: cure the legislative problems, or shut up and let the market play out.
hist78
Well-known member
And US government, both executive and legislative branches, should ask TSMC and Samsung too. Ask them why their cost are lower than US.
At one point, I even thought about US should invite Morris Chang to be a co-chair of a blue ribbon commission to give US semiconductor industry a review and a proposal. Dr. Chang's indepth knowledge, worldwide connections, and real-world experience in building a semiconductor company and a semiconductor industry is probably second to none.
I admire Chang, but we've already heard his opinion:
US chip output growth a futile exercise, warns TSMC founder • The Register
Also, I'm especially unimpressed with TSMC and their planning for AZ fabs. I've read a lot of whining from the TSMC CEO about how US labor costs are higher than they expected. What sort of planning is that? Incompetent, it sounds like, which I don't believe. I think it's artificial complaining just for the benefit of US politicians; a "woe is us" story. They couldn't be so incompetent as not to know their projected costs before they started.
Asking Samsung is a good idea, because they've done it already.
hist78
Well-known member
@lilo777,
Please ignore the hardwaretime.com article. Their writings/translation went wrong badly.
The original article published by Taiwanese Chinatimes.com was talking about Taiwan's semiconductor industry will invest about US$119 billion to build 20 new fabs in Taiwan, not in mainland China.
That faulty article is not a creditable reference for our discussion.
Last edited:
hist78
Well-known member
Just because Morris Chang said something you or me don't like so we will limit our sources to listen?
At this moment it's not just a $52 billion quiz or a virtual investment game. Its positive and negative impact will have long lasting consequences.
US should ask his opinions about how to revive/enhance/improve US semiconductor industry. Even his opinions might not be pleasant.
Last edited:
I think he'll make a damned fool out of himself. I also think his opinions on this topic are nationalistic and silly. After the Camas facility fiasco, it is not clear TSMC knows how to succeed in the US.
Chipmakers may finally get their $52 billion in Chips Act government subsidies—but companies like Intel are not happy about some of the strings attached
The latest disagreement between chipmakers and lawmakers: whether to prevent those who get CHIPS Act funding from expanding in China.
The biggest point of contention relates to China—specifically, the restrictions on investing in China that will apply to companies that receive CHIPS Act money.
The CHIPS Act funding comes with so-called guardrails meant to ensure that U.S. subsidies are spent on building factories in the U.S. and not put towards some other purpose. One provision prevents recipients of CHIPS Act funding from expanding production of advanced chips in China, which would further escalate U.S. efforts to prevent China from producing the components that power nearly all of today's digital devices, from phones and tablets to cars and servers.
Lawmakers worry that recipients of Chips Act funding could undermine U.S. security by expanding production in rival countries like China and thus want to impose conditions on chipmakers that get public money.
Chipmakers like Intel are lobbying to loosen those guardrails, reports Politico. One draft of the legislation barred funding recipients from producing semiconductors smaller than 28 nanometers in China. While chips of that size are still used in some consumer electronics, the most advanced chips used in smartphones and tablets are much smaller, meaning the proposal would prohibit chipmakers from churning out their most innovative technology on Chinese soil.
Instead of a blanket prohibition on chip production in China, Intel and other chipmakers want to give the Secretary of Commerce the authority to determine what size semiconductors are off-limits. One unnamed chipmaker told the Financial Times that chip manufacturing is developing so rapidly that the 28 nanometer threshold would be meaningless after a few generations of new chips.
Chipmakers may finally get their $52 billion in Chips Act government subsidies—but companies like Intel are not happy about some of the strings attached
The latest disagreement between chipmakers and lawmakers: whether to prevent those who get CHIPS Act funding from expanding in China.www.yahoo.com
The biggest point of contention relates to China—specifically, the restrictions on investing in China that will apply to companies that receive CHIPS Act money.
The CHIPS Act funding comes with so-called guardrails meant to ensure that U.S. subsidies are spent on building factories in the U.S. and not put towards some other purpose. One provision prevents recipients of CHIPS Act funding from expanding production of advanced chips in China, which would further escalate U.S. efforts to prevent China from producing the components that power nearly all of today's digital devices, from phones and tablets to cars and servers.
Lawmakers worry that recipients of Chips Act funding could undermine U.S. security by expanding production in rival countries like China and thus want to impose conditions on chipmakers that get public money.
Chipmakers like Intel are lobbying to loosen those guardrails, reports Politico. One draft of the legislation barred funding recipients from producing semiconductors smaller than 28 nanometers in China. While chips of that size are still used in some consumer electronics, the most advanced chips used in smartphones and tablets are much smaller, meaning the proposal would prohibit chipmakers from churning out their most innovative technology on Chinese soil.
Instead of a blanket prohibition on chip production in China, Intel and other chipmakers want to give the Secretary of Commerce the authority to determine what size semiconductors are off-limits. One unnamed chipmaker told the Financial Times that chip manufacturing is developing so rapidly that the 28 nanometer threshold would be meaningless after a few generations of new chips.
Given that China struggles even with 65nm (the last node one can buy the process for on the open market) blanket prohibition makes sense.
For any wet node, you need to get your own process developed.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES STATEMENT FOLLOWING SENATE PROCEDURAL VOTE ON LEGISLATION TO BOLSTER U.S. COMPETITIVENESS
Malta, New York, July 19, 2022 – GlobalFoundries (Nasdaq: GFS) (GF) today released the following statement on today’s bipartisan procedural vote in the U.S. Senate to advance CHIPS Act funding that will strengthen the competitiveness of semiconductor chip manufacturing in America:
“Today’s vote is an important, necessary and welcome milestone in an effort to develop and enact policies that strengthen U.S. high-tech manufacturing competitiveness, economic and national security, and create high-paying semiconductor manufacturing jobs in America,” said Dr. Thomas Caulfield, president and CEO of GF. “The past two years have clearly shown how vitally important chips are to American consumers, businesses and the economic health of our nation, both today and in the future.”
“On behalf of GF’s more than 7,000 U.S. employees, I’d like to convey our appreciation to Senators Schumer and Cornyn, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo and the many other leaders from both parties that have worked tirelessly and persistently to get us to this point,” Caulfield added. “Now our country needs the Senate, House of Representatives and White House to make a final push so that we can grow chip manufacturing in the U.S.”
Demand for semiconductors has soared with the rapid growth in use of chips in mobile devices, vehicles, the Internet of Things (IoT), 5G infrastructure and more.
Headquartered in Malta, New York, GF has been increasing manufacturing output at its manufacturing facilities, known as “fabs,” in Malta, and Burlington, Vermont, as well as facilities in Germany and Singapore. Once Congress funds the CHIPS Act, the investments GF receives from the $52 billion in the legislation will be used to expand GF manufacturing, research and development in the U.S., including expansion of manufacturing capacity and creation of new jobs at GF’s existing campus in Malta.
###
coldsolder215
Active member
NY politicians were happy to help IBM managers poison the well with political and financial opportunism when they lured the 300mm fab away from their base of expertise in VT. And all I hear from the boomers who facilitated it is "but VT didn't/doesn't have the infrastructure" to which I say "well yeah that is the root of this entire problem". Even if CHIPS passes in its entirety it's repairing a condemned house with monopoly money. Just like how the Ukraine small arms aid package ended up mostly in Northern Virginia McMansions, this one will disappear into the sovereign wealth fund of UAE, or McKinsey, or Intel's shareholders, and definitely the offshore bank accounts of the very people who brought us to it.
This op-ed in the WSJ probably takes a subscription to read, but in case not:
www.wsj.com
Opinion | When the Chips Are Down, Congress Should Support the Semiconductor Industry
Proposed grants would help consumers and strengthen the economy and U.S. national security.
www.wsj.com
M
mgoldsmith1979
Guest
Intel does not manufacture in China. Their fab in Dalian (for NAND memory) was sold. Note the article says "Intel and SIA". Asking for the threshold of 'legacy' node to be flexible vs fixed at 28nm seems astute given that TSMC already has 16nm FinFET production at Nanjing.
The primary channel here for Intel and others is that the OEMs / ODMs are based in China, so the sales channel for finished goods is through there. This is why China states they import so many semiconductors, but fails to highlight how many assembled-goods they export with those semiconductors in them. Companies may want to invest in their local support offices, but current language restricts this (or is unclear? I haven't read the thing). Language that makes it clear growing a Sales group in China is OK for companies that are recipients of CHIPS funding for a US fab might be sufficient here? IDK.
The article is not very clear aside from the part about technology nodes, but again Intel doesn't fab anything in China anymore, so it is a bit moot for them and click-baity to call them out in the headline. What if they want to fund a packaging / assembly plant in China, is that a viable option if they have accepted CHIPS funding for advanced semi production in US?
S
smeyer0028
Guest
I think the current concentration of semiconductor manufacturing goes
back to government policies back 20 years around 2000. Both DEC and Hewlet Packard were investing in and developing leading edge semiconductor divisions.
That ended when anti trust laws were not enforced and both companies died
by being bought out (ended their engineering focus).
I asked Matsushita engneers while visiting Japan as part of the
Antrim AMS project that Matsushita had invested in why Japan was
not a global semi exporterr because their manufacturing
skill was so high. Answer was that Japan policy was to emphasize the
auto industry and de-emphasize the semi industry. In my view US
needs to enforce antitrust laws already on the books including suing
monopsonys such as Apple to rebuild US semi industry.
back to government policies back 20 years around 2000. Both DEC and Hewlet Packard were investing in and developing leading edge semiconductor divisions.
That ended when anti trust laws were not enforced and both companies died
by being bought out (ended their engineering focus).
I asked Matsushita engneers while visiting Japan as part of the
Antrim AMS project that Matsushita had invested in why Japan was
not a global semi exporterr because their manufacturing
skill was so high. Answer was that Japan policy was to emphasize the
auto industry and de-emphasize the semi industry. In my view US
needs to enforce antitrust laws already on the books including suing
monopsonys such as Apple to rebuild US semi industry.
Apple is not a monopoly in any market it competes in.